| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 49.7% | Holder distribution | 19 Aug 2026 |
| Holders | 4257077 | Token contract | 19 Aug 2026 |
This automated check looked at the code behind BUSD Token on BSC and found a score of 14 out of 18. In practical terms, the contract includes a function that lets the owner mint new tokens at will, meaning the total supply is not fixed and could be increased by whoever controls the admin keys. No pausable transfer function and no address blacklist function were detected on the date of this check, which means the contract does not appear to give the owner a built-in way to freeze the token or block specific wallets from trading it. The contract is also not an upgradeable proxy, so its core logic cannot be swapped out after deployment the way some proxy-based tokens can be. Source code is verified on the block explorer, which means the code you see is the code that runs, though verification alone does not tell you anything about who controls the admin functions or how they intend to use them. Separately, the top 10 holders were found to control 49.7% of the circulating supply, which is a concentration level worth noting, since large holders moving funds can affect available liquidity and market behaviour.
What this check does not tell you is just as important. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it does not assess who is behind the project, whether the team is doxxed or anonymous, how the token's economics are designed to function over time, whether any legal entity stands behind it, or what the stated or actual intent of the admin keys is. A mint function being present does not mean it will be misused, and its absence would not have guaranteed anything about intent either. No human has reviewed this specific contract or project; the findings above come from automated analysis of on-chain code and holder data as it existed at the time of the check.
Before putting money in, it's worth looking into who holds the admin or owner address and whether those permissions sit behind a multisig or timelock, which would make sudden changes harder to execute unilaterally. Check whether the project has published any documentation on why the mint function exists and how it has been used historically — block explorers let you view past mint transactions directly. Look at where the top holders' tokens are concentrated, since exchange or treasury wallets read differently than unknown individual wallets. Finally, consider searching for independent commentary, audits, or news coverage on the project separately from this automated check, since none of that is captured here.